IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vinod Diwakar, J.
Shanu Raja - Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Application U/S 482 No. - 31760 of 2023
Decided On : 02-02-2024
Juvenile Justice Act - Transfer of Case - Section 14(3), Section 15 - The court discussed the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, specifically focusing on section 14(3) and section 15. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences under section 15, to be completed within a specified time frame. The court found that the failure to comply with these provisions would result in an injury or prejudice to the substantial rights of the child and occasion a failure of justice. The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order, directing the case to be tried before the Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a minor at the time of the offence, sought transfer of the case to the Juvenile Justice Board, challenging the order transferring the case to the Children's Court. The issue before the court was whether the Board was right to invoke the provision of section 15 in disregard of section 14(3) and justified in transferring the case to the Children's Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act should have been completed within the specified time frame as mandated by section 14(3). The court concluded that the failure to comply with these provisions would result in an injury or prejudice to the substantial rights of the child and occasion a failure of justice. As a result, the court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order, directing the case to be tried before the Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue before the court was whether the Juvenile Justice Board was right to transfer the case to the Children's Court in disregard of the mandatory provisions of section 14(3) and section 15 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act should have been completed within the specified time frame as mandated by section 14(3). The court emphasized the mandatory nature of these provisions and the potential prejudice to the substantial rights of the child in case of non-compliance.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the case to be tried before the Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
Vinod Diwakar, J.
1. This judgment is being structured in the following conceptual framework to facilitate the discussion:
| I | Prosecution Case in Brief |
| II | Issue before this Court |
| III | Submissions |
| IV | Broad Reasons and Objectives for the Enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 |
| VI | Factual Analysis of the Case |
| VII | Conclusion |
2. I heard Shri A.B.L. Gour, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Vaibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State Respondent and perused the record.
I. Prosecution Case in Brief
3. As per the prosecution’s case, while the complainant party was sowing in the field, the accused party attacked them with a sharp-edged weapon and also resorted to fire. One of the injured died in hospital, whereas three victims sustained serious injuries. The petitioner is also arrayed one of the accused along with six others. On reporting to the police on 11.10.2016, an FIR No.0484 of 2016 under sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 & 506 IPC was registered at P.S. Pali, District Lalitpur. After concluding the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in the instant case on 21.7.2017 before the Juvenile Justice Board qua petitioner.
4. The petitioner claims to be minor at the time of the offence and placed reliance on the High School Certificate dated 15.5.2016 issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh, in which the applicant's date of birth is mentioned as 19.9.1999. The petitioner was 17 years and 22 days old at the time of the incident. In essence, the petitioner was over sixteen years old but less than eighteen years of age; therefore, claim rescue of section 15 read with section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The core argument of the petitioner is that the order dated 19.7.2019 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Lalitpur, is defective in law and, thus, has no legal sanctity, therefore, the Children's Court, has no competent jurisdiction. Notably, the Juvenile Justice Board, Lalitpur, initially tried the matter, and after it, vide impugned order dated 19.7.2019, holding the juvenile (petitioner) has the physical capacity to commit the murder and could understand the consequence of the offence and the circumstances in which the murder has been committed referred the matter to the Children's Court (POCSO Act), Lalitpur for further trial
II. Issue before this Court
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.7.2019, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition to transfer the case to the Juvenile Justice Board, Lalitpur, for further trial in accordance with the provisions of the Act[Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)]. In essence, whether the Board was right to invoke the provision of section 15 of the Act in utter disregard of section 14(3) of the Act[Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’)] and justified in transferring the case in question for further trial to the Children's Court having jurisdiction to try such offences.
III. Submissions
6. In this background, Shri A.B.L. Gour, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, outlined his arguments as under:
6.2 The petitioner was a juvenile at the time of occurrence of the crime, and therefore, his case shall be tried before the Juvenile Justice Board.
6.3 On 2.2.2017, the petitioner filed an application before the Juvenile Justice Board, Lalitpur, to declare him a juvenile,
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. and others
Dattatraya Moreshwar v. State of Bombay
Sharif-ud-Din v. Abdul Gani Lone
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, to be completed within the specified time frame as....
(1) Appeal, under Section 101(2) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 against order of Board passed under Section 15 of Act, can be filed within a period of 30 days. Appellate court can entertain appeal aft....
The time limit of three months prescribed under S. 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, for conducting a preliminary assessment for heinous offences is directory....
The court affirmed that the Board's reliance on social and counseling reports satisfied statutory requirements for trying a child as an adult under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Proper independent assessments under the Juvenile Justice Act are mandatory before a child can be tried as an adult for heinous crimes to ensure a just trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.